By Sarah Campise Hallier
EDITOR’S SUMMARY: A coalition backed by Big Food is disguising its lobbying as consumer advocacy. Under the name “Americans for Ingredient Transparency,” the group promotes a national “standard” that would erase state bans on toxic additives and dyes. Yet it’s not about giving you clearer labels—it’s about deciding who gets to write the rules. Real transparency begins when you see through the spin and hold corporations accountable for shaping your food.
You read the labels. You compare ingredients. You take the time to choose food that aligns with your values and health. That everyday act—deciding what goes into your body—has become an expression of trust between you and the food industry itself. But that trust is starting to crack. The right to know what’s in your food, and to make choices based on that knowledge, is being quietly challenged. A strategy that looks like grassroots advocacy but is engineered by powerful interests is moving into place. It’s called astroturfing—a playbook that creates front groups claiming to represent ordinary people while advancing industry goals behind the scenes.
A new coalition called “Americans for Ingredient Transparency” (AFIT) recently emerged, claiming its mission is to establish a “uniform national standard” for ingredient safety and transparency. On paper, that sounds positive. Who wouldn’t want more clarity? Scratch beneath the surface, and you’ll see a different story. Astroturfing often begins this way—with a friendly name and a reassuring message. They promise to protect you. But once they have your trust, the tides turn, and before you know it, their real agenda has helped push through laws you didn’t actually support. According to AFIT’s own messaging:
“Conflicting and overly burdensome laws can confuse consumers and leave them with fewer choices. Consumers need a national policy standard for products with consistent regulations that keep science and risk-based regulation at the forefront, protect public health, promote consumer education, and ensure consumer confidence.”
The translation here: they’re pushing back against state-level ingredient bans. When a single federal rule overrides local decisions, it can delay or weaken protections that states are already fighting to put in place. AFIT is trying to convince you that they want simplicity for shoppers, but in reality it’s about creating convenience for corporations. AFIT has even enlisted the Washington-based Russell Group, a prominent lobbying and public affairs firm, to advance its campaign on Capitol Hill. This move underscores the coalition’s determination to spread its message that a single federal law would be preferable to individual state efforts on ingredient safety and disclosure.
They have gone so far as to promote widespread media coverage portraying the group as a conservative coalition, aiming to shape public perception in their favor. Fox News and The Epoch Times both recently published articles portraying AFIT in a positive light. Meanwhile, the Associated Press has reported on industry-aligned groups working behind the scenes to influence state laws that determine what ends up in your food or how it’s regulated. This overlap suggests a deliberate media push—one designed to cast state-led ingredient bans as partisan. Consumer Reports didn’t mince words:
“If there were truth-in-labeling laws governing the naming of campaigns, this coalition would be prohibited from disguising their true intention, which is to wipe out all of the state laws that protect consumers from harmful chemical ingredients in food and hold the industry accountable.”
Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit whose mission is to “shine a spotlight on outdated legislation, harmful agricultural practices and industry loopholes that pose a risk to our health and the health of our environment,” didn’t hold back in his criticism of AFIT:
“Let’s be clear,” wrote Faber, “This has nothing to do with transparency. This is about protecting corporate profits and keeping consumers in the dark about toxic chemicals in their food. Families deserve the truth about what’s in their food, not another slick PR campaign cooked up by industry to deceive the public and roll back state food safety laws. If this group is being honest, it would call itself ‘Corporations for Ingredient Toxicity.’”
AFIT’s language may sound reassuring with words like “science-based,” “public health,” and “consumer confidence,” but these phrases mirror the same ones industry groups have used for decades to defend chemical additives, GMOs and pesticides. It’s a familiar tactic—using the language of safety to protect industry power over what ends up in your food. When corporations shape the definition of “transparency,” clarity is lost. What you get is precision-engineered confusion.
According to public disclosures and industry filings, AFIT’s backers read like a who’s who of Big Food and chemical interests: Corn Refiners Association, The Food Industry Association, and the National Potato Council, along with household names like PepsiCo, Nestlé, General Mills and Hormel. So while the name “Americans for Ingredient Transparency” sounds wholesome, the goal seems anything but. AFIT isn’t a company—it’s an alliance built and bankrolled by the very corporations it claims to keep in check. It operates as a puppet for corporate interests, designed to speak with the public’s voice while its strings are pulled behind the scenes. And in that design, you aren’t meant to truly speak—you’re meant to be the pawn, moved to defend industry power instead of your right to safer food.
What’s Really at Stake
A closer look at AFIT’s motives reveals a different kind of “transparency”— one that serves corporate interests, not consumers. That message matters, because it reaches you through the foods you buy and the labels you trust. You’ve seen “natural flavors” or “artificial colors” on ingredient labels and may have assumed they were harmless. But many of A Voice for Choice Advocacy’s (AVFCA) articles have described how those vague phrases can hide dozens of dangerous chemicals, solvents, and preservatives. In ‘“Natural Flavors’ May Entice You To Buy, but What Do the Flavorists Know That You Don’t?,” AVFCA writer Liz Quinn explains:
“Because the FDA does not require food companies to disclose to consumers all of the ingredients that comprise a ‘natural flavor,’ the consumer is left with no way of knowing if there are components that could affect people with sensitive or uncommon allergies, and those with restricted diets.”
Behind the label, “natural” flavors can hide a chemical cocktail of undisclosed substances. They can include extracts dissolved in chemical carriers or flavor molecules derived from ingredients that barely resemble the foods they imitate. And the U.S. Food and Drug Administration lets companies keep it that way. There’s no requirement to disclose these sub-ingredients, even when they can trigger headaches, gut distress, or allergic reactions in many people..
AVFCA continues to explore the topic in Jennifer Wolff-Gillispie HWP, LC’s article, “Ingredients That Cause ‘Side’ Effects: Hold On to Your Hat!—It’s an Avalanche.” Wolff-Gillispie notes that many additives appear on labels with long, technical names that are difficult to understand. There is no guidance to help you learn what these substances are or how they can affect your health. Certain preservatives and dyes may irritate the digestive system or disrupt hormone regulation. Others have been linked to hyperactivity in children and may cause reactions in people with chemical sensitivities. And too often, you only learn about the risks when it’s already happening to you or someone you care about.
When you start to see how many ingredients remain concealed, the stakes become clear. That’s why AFIT’s talk of “disclosure” deserves a closer look. While it claims to champion honesty in labeling, it’s backed by the very companies that profit from keeping key details hidden. A genuine disclosure standard would include:
- Requiring companies to list all additive components, not just vague terms.
- Mandating disclosure of solvents, carriers, and stabilizers hidden in flavorings.
- Making data on toxicity and cumulative exposure publicly accessible.
Why state action is the strongest firewall against industry influence
States have long driven progress on food safety—from pasteurization laws to trans-fat bans—while federal agencies often catch up years later. That leadership is exactly what industry groups want to curb. A 2025 analysis from Mayer Brown LLP noted:
“Changing regulatory and enforcement priorities are already having an impact across the food and beverage industries—including dietary supplements and infant formula products—affecting existing product lines, deal-making activities, and future investments.”
Across the country, several states have now passed laws restricting synthetic dyes and additives, with more following close behind.
- California (AB 418) bans Red 3, brominated vegetable oil (BVO), potassium bromate, and propylparaben in all foods sold statewide, effective Jan. 1, 2027.
- West Virginia (HB 2354) phases in a broader policy banning seven dyes and additional additives, starting with public schools (Aug. 1, 2025) and expanding statewide by Jan. 1, 2028.
- California (AB 2316) removes Blue 1 and 2, Green 3, Red 3 and 40, Yellow 5 and 6 from public-school meals by Dec. 31, 2027.
- Virginia (SB 1289 / HB 1910) excludes the same dyes from school meals beginning July 1, 2027.
- Utah (HB 402) eliminates those dyes plus potassium bromate and propylparaben from school food, signed March 27, 2025, rolling in during the 2026–27 school year.
Other states—including New York, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania—are considering similar measures, and Texas has already enacted a label-warning requirement rather than a full ban.
These victories are what corporate lobbyists want to undo. Why? Because even when one state bans a chemical, major food corporations must reformulate nationally to keep production simple. That’s how state action creates national change. But if those companies succeed in pushing a federal “standard” through Congress—especially one that weakens or delays protections—they buy themselves years of business as usual. As author and activist Vani Hari (“Food Babe”) recently expressed:
“They just launched a new group posing as a consumer-advocacy campaign for ingredient transparency, but its real goal is to block states from banning food additives. This name sure sounds nice on paper, which was very clever on their part – and goes hand in hand with their mission to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public and undo all of the grassroots work that we have been doing.
It is much easier for companies to spend their lobbying dollars in one place in Washington than it is to fight protections in fifty different state capitols. When corporations call for uniformity, what they often intend is centralized control. Pressure means progress. Every time a state takes action, companies must adapt, and those adaptations ripple through the entire industry. This is why state-level protections matter so much. They continue to drive change even when federal policy lags behind. If AFIT succeeds in pushing a single, watered-down federal rule, that progress could stall for decades behind governmental red tape and slow politics. The same strategy has surfaced before with chemical safety, environmental policy, and labeling of genetically engineered crops. The lesson is simple: local laws protect everyone’s health.
Industry has taken this route before. When state lawmakers tried to require clear labeling of genetically engineered ingredients, powerful food corporations fought back hard. They argued that a single national rule would reduce confusion, yet the result was a federal law that undermined state progress. Families were left with as little information as before. As Zen Honeycutt, executive director of Moms Across America, said: “The ‘Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015’ eliminated states’ rights and passed a watered-down federal law that essentially stopped GMO labeling.” Her warning is a reminder that national standards do not always lead to stronger safeguards. Sometimes they erase the protections that were working.
Where You Come In
Here’s how to help make sure those hard-won gains don’t disappear:
- Get to know your lawmakers: Identify which state legislators are sponsoring ingredient-safety bills and thank them publicly.
- Share credible sources: Before posting or forwarding an article, take a moment to see who’s behind it. Look for reporting that’s transparent about its sourcing and free from AFIT-style messaging.
- Buy consciously: Every purchase is a vote for the kind of food system you want. Look for brands that share full ingredient breakdowns. Choose organic to avoid synthetic dyes and artificial flavors. Money talks in this industry—when you choose integrity, companies notice.
- Stay alert for “uniformity” language: In legislation or public statements, “uniformity” often signals an attempt to override state standards.
- Educate others: Real change starts in communities. Share what you know—parent to parent, friend to friend. Teach your families and your children, and pass that knowledge forward.
Corporations have always worked hard to protect their bottom line by shaping the rules that govern what you eat. They fund campaigns that look like consumer advocacy. They hire lobbyists who quietly rewrite the definitions of safety. When labeling laws move forward, the food industry pushes back with polished messaging that tells you everything is fine. When a front group borrows words like “openness and clarity” to protect profits, your awareness becomes their biggest obstacle. You deserve real truth, not rebranding. You deserve the right to know what’s in your food—without the illusion of choice. The real fight isn’t against the government—it’s against the propaganda and lobbying machines that have shaped policy from the shadows. This story is about exposing that machinery so it can no longer hide behind friendly language and polished campaigns. Once exposed, their power weakens. Choice is power—and that choice belongs to you.
~
Published on October 30, 2025.
If you’ve found value in this article, please share it!
To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.
